Graham Pugh writes:
>My brief and probably unnecessary comments about academic standards at Ivy
>League schools seems to have ignited a lot of repressed anti-Ivy sentiment
>out there.
 
Repressed anti-Ivy sentiment??  Where in the world are you coming up with
this?  Why would I have anything to hold against the Ivies personally?  My
problem is not with the schools themselves or with the Ivy hockey programs.
Like my comments re: the NC**, I am against the unnecessary restrictions
placed upon the Ivy hockey programs by administrations who have nothing to
do with hockey and whose restrictions, in my view, are doing more to hurt
the Ivy hockey programs than to help them.
 
I am more than aware of the problems that Ivy hockey teams face that aren't
faced by other programs in the country.  I have friends who play or have
played at Ivy schools, and they feel the same way.  As someone who loves the
sport of college hockey, I want to see things done to advance the sport, and
I think the restrictions placed upon Ivy programs run counter to this.  That
is the basis for my comments.
 
>           As far as I can tell, just about everyone who subscribes to this
>list is disgusted by the abuses which occur in big division I basketball and
>football programs.  They also feel that college hockey programs do not suffer
>from the same level of corruption.  I don't have any first-hand knowledge of
>this - maybe someone can tell me:  Are there hockey players out there at some
>schools (I don't KNOW which schools they might be) who get a free ride
>financially and academically?  Do most of them graduate?
 
I have no numbers, so I can only speak from experience.  While there may be
a very small number of the bad situations you allude to, my experience has
been that no, most players do not get a free ride academically, and yes, most
do graduate.  Even players who leave early to turn pro do work to complete
their degrees in the offseason.  At Northeastern, where the average student
goes to school five years because of co-op (and even players fulfill their
co-op commitments), after a player finishes his four years of eligibility
and still has a year left to graduate, most I knew of did indeed remain in
school their final year if they did not turn pro (of course most don't).  At
Merrimack, perhaps the worst situation was All-America goalie Jim Hrivnak
being declared academically ineligible by the school (not by the NC**) for
the spring semester of his senior year.  Hrivnak immediately turned pro with
Washington.  But he returned to Merrimack over the next two summers and
completed his degree.
 
Like the average student, there will always be players who get to college and
don't end up graduating because they can't hack college.  But I don't know
of enough that would make me think it is a high enough percentage as to be
far beyond the average student.  My experience has been that most players
sincerely appreciate the opportunity afforded them by a college scholarship,
and they take advantage of it.
 
>                                                          If these problems
>truly are confined only to football and basketball programs, then maybe the
>restrictions on admissions and academic performance put in place by the Ivy
>League are totally irrelevant for college hockey.
 
Yes, this is what I believe.
 
>                                                   My suspicion is that if
>college hockey grows and prospers as many would like it to, the same pressures
>which result in violations of academic integrity in big-time sports will affect
>hockey too.
 
This is certainly a legitimate concern.  But there is nothing to suggest that
college hockey will ever attain the level of prosperity that basketball and
football have reached, and also I believe that the people who run college
hockey have proven themselves, almost to a man/woman, to be people of integrity
who would not allow this to happen.  Believe me, the coaches, ADs, etc. are
sincerely opposed to ever letting anything like this occur.
 
>So if I cheer about Harvard winning the national championship, a lot of that is
>because I respect the rules about scholarships and recruiting followed by that
>institution.  If you think those rules are elitist and irrelevant - hey, that's
>your opinion.
 
That is interesting, it certainly does seem like elitism on your part to root
for Harvard for those reasons (if you are saying you did).  I did root for
Harvard in 1989, because I had seen Harvard play several times that year,
believed they were a great team and wanted to see a great team with quality
people win.  It had only to do with the hockey aspect.  Although, I must say
that having formerly lived in Minnesota, I would not have minded if the Gophers
had won, either.  (And I certainly thought the Gophers were a great team with
quality people, too!)
 
>Mike Machnik writes:
>
>>The only thing the "tradition of support" for hockey does is insure that
>>the majority of the Ivies will be among the worst teams in the nation.  Most
>>likely, it is Harvard and Cornell who are not only competitive but very good
>>because their "tradition" allows them to attract that tiny percentage of
>>good hockey players who can also meet the Ivies' academic requirements.  The
>>other Ivies are left holding the bag.  This is how it has been since the
>>final group of quality players recruited before the index (Yale's Kudelski,
>>Wood, etc.) graduated.  Is it coincidence?  Maybe, but I don't think so.
>
>Would you like to offer a solution which is consistent with the goals of the
>Ivy League?  Or do you just think the goals (or attempts to implement them)
>are flawed?
 
I think the solution has already been implemented in countless other programs
across America that operate without the restrictions that Ivy programs have
to operate under.  Those schools have trust in their coaches and recruiters
to bring high-quality student-athletes to the school who fit in with the
stated goals of the school.  They do not handcuff their coaches and they do
not go out of their way to make it difficult for them to run a hockey program.
 
As has already been pointed out, many non-Ivy or non-ECAC DivI hockey schools
actually rank above Ivy/ECAC schools in many categories.  But the only
impression I've gotten from the Ivies and some other ECAC schools is "academics
first, all else be damned".  What I say is, if you want to have a DivI hockey
program, it is nothing less than hypocrisy to go less than all the way.  It
is fine to say that your school is going to be strictly an academic school
or that you will impose restrictions tantamount to those many DivIII schools
operate under; I have no problem with that.  But then don't try to walk the
line by keeping around a hockey program at the DivI level, and especially
DON'T complain when your program is suffering in comparison to other programs
in DivI and DON'T claim that any wins by your program are a victory for the
tiny, pristine academic schools over the huge, evil sports-only cheating
schools.  (Not directed at you, Graham, but at those who take that attitude.)
 
>>It's just more of the same elitism to
>>me, which I have heard from some ECAC folks to the rest of DivI and even
>>from the Ivies to the ECAC non-Ivies.  (Notice I say "some".)
>
>I guess you already answered that.
 
How I already answered that, I don't know.  If you ask me questions instead
of already assuming my answers, I'll be happy to answer, but please don't
tell everyone what my answer is when you don't know.
---
Mike Machnik        [log in to unmask]       [log in to unmask]